Let's bring things back on track and rather than discuss our varying personal opinions on the subject, actually discuss the topic that we have indeed gone off track on: what future travel looks like, whether we like it/agree with it or not.

Another article has come out from New Zealand media discussing this issue with The International Air Transport Association. It says the same things as we've been recently discussing on this forum: if rapid testing becomes reliable, low-cost, efficient & mass-produced, then air travel can return to a mid-ground between normalcy & restricted travel: https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/ind...nt-experts-say

One interesting part of the article is this:

On-site testing is going to be the only way in the short term that travel will be allowed to start up again.

Combined with social distancing measures on board the aircraft. Although I think some of these are impractical long-haul - such as only selling A+C seats - going to have to pass each other to use the toilet at some point on a 7/8/9+hr flight.

For me, as a primarily leisure traveller, it needs to be measures for eliminating any form of prolonged quarantine on arrival. My next booked trip is 4 nights in NYC in March 2021, no point in going if I have to spend all of it quarantined

Agree testing is the only way forward and it would then eliminate need for social distancing on aircraft and associated price increases, Heathrow boss says the same:"Governments across the world should agree a common standard on medical screening at airports, the boss of Heathrow has said.

Chief executive John Holland-Kaye claimed a single system for assessing passengers' health will help people travel with confidence when the coronavirus crisis recedes and increase the demand for air travel.

He said the measures would be an important boost to Britain's economy."
He wants this to be agreed in the next 6 weeks but says it will be too late for the summer season.

Which corresponds to development and deployment of an effective vaccine. That is not a good scenario.


However, if we can develop an effective therapeutic which would in essence eliminate the illness caused by the virus, then people testing positive for the disease would be treated and the illness would become more like any other systemic disease in our population. IMO, this would be the fastest route to go to bring about return of travel. We cannot test every traveler, but we can test those with temperatures or flu-like symptoms. Those that test positive would be treated and told to isolate or social distance.

We still currently, do not have an effective vaccine for AIDS, but we have very effective treatments for the disease. We cannot prevent the spread (except with social techniques, i.e. condoms etc) but we can treat the illness. Those afflicted live normal lives, with the exception that they have to take their medication (no different than the diabetic or hypertensive).

We cannot wait for a vaccine that may never come - unfortunately a lot of people seem to think we have to. It's the public feeling that will be the biggest barrier to resumption of normality. Just have to look at the reaction here in the UK to the Sunday Times article about the British Government's handling of the early days. Many people calling for Boris Johnson to be charged with manslaughter. Completely disproportionate reaction and we're not going to see that go away any time soon.

I agree that instant/rapid testing would reduce need for social distancing and load reduction, but I feel that certain measures could be implemented or retained to help where possible, such as back to front boarding and earlier boarding to reduce crowding. The other end of that is grouped disembarkation upon arrival, to thin out queues and massive groups at passport control

Appears that this is true, a wonderful happy island (really !) cashing the money for visa applications (plus the rightly introduced tourism levy) and then delaying them indefinitely under the pretext of Corona . If income from tourism would be needed, applications would still be processed to give some planning certainty for guests who then would happily travel as soon as authorities will allow it.

Schengen states play a similar game, but will start issue visa from 15 June onward for travel as soon as the then rules will allow. A much better approach to keep customers.

No Visa requirements on this happy Island, with a significant dependancy on tourism. Just no flights, no ferries, and 14-day Q is you somehow manage to get here. Marooned on a 9x5 Island, one is just grateful that the Freight ferries are still running.

THIS IS ADDRESSED TO EVERYONE, not to the poster of this particular message. I am especially looking for help from anyone who actually knows about testing.

First, what is actually scientifically/technically possible at the present time? (Theranos had a lovely vision. The problem was that the science didn't actually exist. So I want to know what might actually happen, not what we wish would happen.) In other words, do we currently have a test for ANY VIRUS (not bacteria, not chemical in the air, just an actual virus) that is: a) somewhat mobile (i.e. - it can be deployed at multiple locations in an airport); b) which provides results in less than one minute; c) which results are at least 99.5% accurate for the presence of the virus; d) ideally with a per test administration cost below $20.

Second, if that does exist, what is the scientific/technical likelihood that it will be adapted to CV, with the same accuracy, within 90 days?

Third, if it is likely, what will it take to make 10,000 of those machines within 120 days?

Finally, if such a device doesn't yet exist, is there any scientific basis to believe (outside of "magical thought" (a clinical term)) that such technology will be invented and deployed in the next six months?

Because if the answer to those questions is in the negative, then I don't understand why any projection that includes the word "testing" has any application to reality.

Sadly not. The reference test for viral infection is viral culture (i.e. seeing if you can grow the virus in the lab from the patient sample - the result takes several days and cannot be done en masse) and the more scalable test is RT-PCR which detects the viral RNA (can be as quick as 90 minutes, not portable but can be done near the patient as the PCR machines can be miniaturised). A positive RT-PCR test means you almost certainly have the virus. A negative RT-PCR test does not rule out viral infection - there are false negatives.

Impossible to answer this question. What is not possible today may yet be possible in 6 months. The speed and degree of rapid medical innovation continues to amaze me and although there is no certainty, I hope there will be a marked improvement in accuracy, cost and scalability of testing over the next year. But that is based on blind faith rather than any hard evidence at present.

The test Emirates used on their recent trial that I referred to in an earlier post took 10 minutes to produce a result so this could be the way forward.

That Emirates test had an insanely high false negative rate, so it's pretty useless, but it's the first example of things to come.

I find it odd when people say things like "we don't have these tests now, so it's just a dream." Well, sure. We don't have them yet. But technology moves extrodinarily fast when money and people get behind it. And the entire world is getting behind rapid, reliable, easy testing, because its the key to unlocking a LOT, not just air travel. I very much believe in 3-6 months we will have a rapid test.

Rapid Testing right before taking a flight will absolutely not work and it will become obvious as soon as it is deployed at large scale.

- We will realize that the false negative rate is high, so what's the point.
- More importantly, there will be news stories every day of people or children getting stranded and losing their jobs because their test was positive before their return flight, so they were denied boarding and couldn't get back for that reason.
- There will be lawsuits and a lot of religion/privacy concerns about this procedure around the world
- This will simply make demand for international leisure and business travel at zero, or travelling to attend any crowded event (concerts, sports games etc which are very common reason for people to take a trip). No one will want to take a trip to a sports game if there is a risk that their return flight is denied due to positive test.


This would create an impossibly huge hassle for everyone.
Honestly we would simply have to learn to live with the virus till a vaccine is found, or just choose to crater our economies and not travel at all till then.

As I said, psychology recognizes the role of "magical thought" in the human experience. That allowed people to invest in Theranos (for which the technology STILL does not exist). I like being an optimist also. But the problem is not a lack of interest, the problem is that it hasn't been invented yet. So what basis is there to make plans, for 90-120 days in the future, based on something that doesn't exist?

I am not saying that we won't see reopening and I am not saying that we wont' see some sort of testing in the future. But, for now, opening will NOT be based on testing. So, what you need is people who are willing to get on a plane because their perception of the overall risk of their getting sick is low enough that they are willing to take that risk. And that does exist, at some level. Until 30 days ago, I took the risk that I would catch malaria, yellow fever, rabies, hep A, hep C and about 1000 other diseases I didn't even pay attention to. So the issue is when enough people will believe that as a combination of: actual chance of getting sick; actual chance of getting badly sick; herd immunity; personal immunity; etc. all mixes together and makes it a background noise (just like the danger of letting an Uber driver take me to the airport).

None of these have the contagious potential that Covid-19 does. Hep A has a vaccine, as does yellow fever. If you are in any sort of high-risk job, you get a rabies vaccine, and if you have an untoward animal encounter, you get the rabies vaccine then. No one worries they are going to give malaria to other residents of their high-rise apartment building, or fellow workers in their skyscraper, by being in the elevator. And so on.